United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 37)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Screening Requirement and Standard
Ricardo Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff initiated this action on October 23, 2015 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was transferred to this
Court on January 15, 2016, and received on January 20, 2016.
(ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff's first amended complaint
(“FAC”), filed on December 1, 2016, is currently
before the court for screening. (ECF No. 37.)
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(A)(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a
plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss
v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted
unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with
liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
(quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Courts are required to liberally construe pro se prisoner
complaints. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97
S.Ct. 285, 292 (1976).
is a state prisoner currently housed at Salinas Valley State
Prison in Soledad, California. The events at issue are
alleged to have occurred Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff
names as defendants: (1) D. Davey, Warden; (2) A. Enenmoh,
M.D., Chief Medical Officer; (3) J. Lewis, M.D., Deputy
Director, (4) J. Furtune, M.D., primary care provider, (5) J.
Kim, M.D., primary care provider, (6) E. Clark, M.D., primary
alleges as follows. He was denied care for his serious
medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On May 27,
2014, Defendant Furtune denied Plaintiff's request for
chest pain medication. On May 25, 2014, Dr. Tao prescribed
Motrin and tramadol for severe chest pain. Then Plaintiff was
transferred on May 29, 2014 to Corcoran State Prison.
Plaintiff alleges that from August 29, 2014 to September 8,
2014, morphine medication was stopped. Dr. Clark denied
severe chest pain medication and treatment for chronic lung
disease that required nebulizer therapy. On October 14, 2014,
a radiologist recommended a CT scan of his lungs but it was
denied until 5/9/16. On January 7, 2015, Dr. Kim denied
health care services of an operation for an epididymis and
excision of tumor.Plaintiff was also denied multiple
recommendations for a CT scan of the abdomen pelvis.
December 4, 2015, Dr. Scharffenberg denied a
neurosurgeon's recommendation of higher level of care at
Stanford Medical Center and for an MRI of the low back for
severe pain medication. Plaintiff filed suit for this denial
which is pending at Case No. 1:16-1655 BAM. Plaintiff then
lists times that he has been denied medical records from
third parties and that such denial is pending in Case. No.
1:16-cv- 1658 MJS. On January 20, 2016, Plaintiff was denied
then recites a list of denials of medical services. Plaintiff
was denied a MRI of the cervical spine, physical therapy or
tens unit for pain. He was denied follow up appointments with
Dr. Ramberg, neurosurgeon, from November 2014 - October 2015.
He was denied imaging of the lungs and was denied removal of
cataracts. Plaintiff then details each of his appeals
regarding his attempts to exhaust his administrative
remedies. (Doc. 37, p. 9-11.)
does not state the relief he seeks.
Deficiencies of Complaint
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal
conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556-557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff has been previously informed, Plaintiff's
complaint is sparse and relies primarily on attached
exhibits, with minimal factual allegations underlying his
claims. Plaintiff's allegations mostly focus on
summarizing the administrative appeals. Although he claims
several different violations of his rights, his ...